Why do you feel a NEED for theistic evolution?

[jJIM THINNSEN]

jJIM THINNSEN, for just a moment, consider the difference it would make if you were mistaken about Genesis, and it turned out to really be an allegory about the first two humans, who disobeyed God in some way and required a Savior. I do this from time to time, because it not only helps me focus on what matters to God, but it also allows me to look at the world as a creationist might.

Cromwells' Rule:
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.
Oliver Cromwell, to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland

It is always possible, no matter how well we think we have it understood. And the consequences, in this case, are of no consequence. God doesn't judge you on your understanding of Genesis. No biology exam at judgement, no geology test.

Matthew7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Listen to Him and this won't trouble you further.

"For just a moment, consider the difference it would make if you were mistaken about Genesis"

I am not mistaken about Genesis, if Genesis is wrong, then GOD HIMSELF is mistaken about it..
I'll go with what God says ESPECIALLY since all of the evidence supports a literal Genesis anyway.. good luck!!

"God doesn't judge you on your understanding of Genesis."

No, but he may judge you for CHANGING what it CLEARLY says just to please Atheists and God haters.... good luck! you gonna need it....

BTW..

It is not about "Understanding" of Genesis.. It is about BELIEVING IT or REJECTING IT...

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford,

 

[The Barbarian]

What do those viruses "evolve" into? Let's say we give those viruses 100 octillian years of "evolution" What do you suppose it would "evolve" into? Let me guess..... A ....(drum roll please) V I R U S.... Ahaha

Well, that's the interesting thing. You see, viruses are fragments of living cells, that (like the plasmids of bacteria) can go from cell to cell and reproduce independently. So not likely to become a cell, unless should pick up genes from a host for a cell membrane and various other enzymes required for independent life. (There is some indication that viruses might have preceded cells; would you like to learn about that?)

(drum roll please)

Tupanvirus soda lake and Tupanvirus deep ocean, both named in relation to the extreme aquatic habitats in which they were discovered, aren't just among the largest viruses ever found – they also contain the most protein-making machinery of any virus discovered to date.

The strains, whose optically visible tailed forms can reach lengths of up to 2.3 micrometres, comprise some 1.5 million base pairs of DNA, with enough protein-coding genes to produce up to 1,425 kinds of proteins.

In terms of protein synthesis, this gives them the "largest translational apparatus within the known virosphere", explains a research team led by virologist Bernard La Scola from Aix-Marseille University in France.

This apparatus puts Tupanvirus in the virus family of Mimiviridae, named after Mimivirus, which was identified in 2003 - at the time it was the virus with the largest capsid diameter ever discovered, among other notable attributes.

Before Mimivirus, viruses were largely considered wholly separate from 'living' creatures, with their inability to synthesise proteins (and thus produce their own energy) being one of the reasons scientists excluded them from being classified among cellular life.

But Mimivirus's genetic complexity – and that of other giant viruses that have subsequently been discovered – challenges this theoretical boundary, because they carry genes capable of things like DNA repair, DNA replication, transcription, and translation.

"With the discovery of superviruses, we have seen that these genes may be present in viral genomes," one of the team behind the Tupanvirus study, Jônatas Abrahão, told Brazilian newspaper Estadão in Portuguese.

"This characteristic changes the notion we have of the distinction between viruses and organisms formed by cells."

And the more we learn about giant viruses, the more we learn what they're capable of.

The Tupanvirus strains don't just hold a (nearly) complete set of genes necessary for protein production – about 30 percent of their genome is unknown to science, being as yet undiscovered within the domains of archea, bacteria, and eukarya.

Obviously, there's still a lot to learn about Tupanvirus and giant viruses in general, but the good news is, this new entity – whatever it exactly should be classified as – is no threat to humans, only amoebae.

These Viruses Found in Brazil Are So Huge They're Challenging What We Think a 'Virus' Is

Surprised? So was I, years ago, when I read the paper on Mimiviruses. Pretty nicely poised between viruses and cells. They have genes for most of the proteins they need.

 

[The Barbarian]

Reason #4: There IS no such thing as a “simple cell.”

Michael Denton explains:

The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle (Denton, p. 264).

Michael Denton explains further...

I]t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies. In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny (my emphasis)

You sure you want to tout this evolutionist?

 

[The Barbarian]

For just a moment, consider the difference it would make if you were mistaken about Genesis

I am not mistaken about Genesis, if Genesis is wrong, then GOD HIMSELF if mistaken about it..

Of course, Genesis could be right, and you could be wrong. Which is much more likely.

I'll go with what God says

You aren't God. And as your guy Denton notes, all the evidence supports evolution.

God doesn't judge you on your understanding of Genesis.

No, but he may judge you for CHANGING what it CLEARLY says just to please Atheists and God haters....

I don't think you're doing it to please atheists and God haters. You just happen to share an agenda with them,to make science and God incompatible. I think you disagree with atheists on a number of things. Most notably, you do seem to sincerely believe in God.

And in the end, that might be all you need. Good luck.

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

Well, that's the interesting thing. You see, viruses are fragments of living cells, that (like the plasmids of bacteria) can go from cell to cell and reproduce independently. So not likely to become a cell, unless should pick up genes from a host for a cell membrane and various other enzymes required for independent life. (There is some indication that viruses might have preceded cells; would you like to learn about that?)

(drum roll please)

Tupanvirus soda lake and Tupanvirus deep ocean, both named in relation to the extreme aquatic habitats in which they were discovered, aren't just among the largest viruses ever found – they also contain the most protein-making machinery of any virus discovered to date.

The strains, whose optically visible tailed forms can reach lengths of up to 2.3 micrometres, comprise some 1.5 million base pairs of DNA, with enough protein-coding genes to produce up to 1,425 kinds of proteins.

In terms of protein synthesis, this gives them the "largest translational apparatus within the known virosphere", explains a research team led by virologist Bernard La Scola from Aix-Marseille University in France.

This apparatus puts Tupanvirus in the virus family of Mimiviridae, named after Mimivirus, which was identified in 2003 - at the time it was the virus with the largest capsid diameter ever discovered, among other notable attributes.

Before Mimivirus, viruses were largely considered wholly separate from 'living' creatures, with their inability to synthesise proteins (and thus produce their own energy) being one of the reasons scientists excluded them from being classified among cellular life.

But Mimivirus's genetic complexity – and that of other giant viruses that have subsequently been discovered – challenges this theoretical boundary, because they carry genes capable of things like DNA repair, DNA replication, transcription, and translation.

"With the discovery of superviruses, we have seen that these genes may be present in viral genomes," one of the team behind the Tupanvirus study, Jônatas Abrahão, told Brazilian newspaper Estadão in Portuguese.

"This characteristic changes the notion we have of the distinction between viruses and organisms formed by cells."

And the more we learn about giant viruses, the more we learn what they're capable of.

The Tupanvirus strains don't just hold a (nearly) complete set of genes necessary for protein production – about 30 percent of their genome is unknown to science, being as yet undiscovered within the domains of archea, bacteria, and eukarya.

Obviously, there's still a lot to learn about Tupanvirus and giant viruses in general, but the good news is, this new entity – whatever it exactly should be classified as – is no threat to humans, only amoebae.

These Viruses Found in Brazil Are So Huge They're Challenging What We Think a 'Virus' Is

Surprised? So was I, years ago, when I read the paper on Mimiviruses. Pretty nicely poised between viruses and cells. They have genes for most of the proteins they need.

"Surprised?"

Not at all.. So it appears that if viruses were given 100 octillian years of "evolution" what they would "evolve" into would be a .... VIRUS...

Just like over the course of 500 million years of "evolution" while SOME jellyfish were evolving into humans, OTHER jellyfish were evolving into Jellyfish.. Specifically the comb variety.. ("Living fossils") Wouldnt a much more PARSIMONIOUS explanation be that jellyfish have ALWAYS been jellyfish and Humans have always been Humans?

"I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum...I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence."

(Dr. Johnathan Wells, Molecular biochemist and author of the book, "Icons of Evolution")

 

[The Barbarian]

Is evolution the fact you’ve been told it is?

It's directly observed. So you can't do much better than that. Remember again, what evolution is. Once again, you've confused evolution with a consequence of evolution.

Or is there reason to doubt Darwin?

A friend of mine wrote a book about that:
https://www.amazon.com/Doubts-about-Darwin-History-Intelligent/dp/0801065216

He was kind enough to send me a copy, signed with a nice note inside the cover. It's worth reading; he bounced a lot of ideas off me during the research, so it's definitely a creationist work, but with fewer major errors in assessing evolutionary theory. Still available from Amazon.

You may be surprised at how many, highly educated scientists are skeptics of his theory,

There's a way to test that belief. Comparing the number of people on the Discovery Institute's list of "Scientists who doubt Darwin", and the list at"Project Steve", you can compare the number of people with doctorates in biology or a related field, named "Steve" or some variant, who support/don't support evolutionary theory. Last time I checked, about 0.3% of them don't accept evolutionary theory. That's not 3%; it's 0.3%. Would you like me to check for you, again? Or you could check for yourself. You probably won't like the results.

and instead find science siding more and more with intelligent design.

ID has pretty much run its course, like Bible Geology and Creation Science. As ID inventor Philip Johnson admitted, the Dover Trial was a "train wreck" for "intelligent design." There were a lot of disasters therein, but the low point for creationism had to be when IDer, and Discovery Institute fellow Michael Behe admitted that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Surprised?"

Not at all.. So it appears that if viruses were given 100 octillian years of "evolution" what they would "evolve" into would be a .... VIRUS...

As you just learned, some viruses are kinda halfway between viruses and living cells. Precisely what you thought could not be.

Just like over the course of 500 million years of "evolution" while SOME jellyfish were evolving into humans

As you learned, humans evolved from other primates, not jellyfish,which are too evolved int their own way to have led to humans.

OTHER jellyfish were evolving into Jellyfish.. Specifically the comb variety..

No, you forgot all about how that works. Comb jellies are their own basal group, not a derived group.

("Living fossils") Wouldnt a much more PARSIMONIOUS explanation be that jellyfish have ALWAYS been jellyfish and Humans have always been Humans?

As your fellow creationist Kurt Wise admits, there is very good evidence for humans evolving from other hominids. That's the most parsimonious conclusion from the fossil record. Perhaps you don't know what "parsimonious" means.

"I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum...I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence."
(Dr. Johnathan Wells, Molecular biochemist and author of the book, "Icons of Evolution")

Jonathan Wells (note the spelling)
Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) - Wikipedia
He also thinks that the Rev. Moon is an improvement on Jesus Christ, so it's not the only weird idea he has.

And it's way wrong. In the 18 years since he made that prediction, the percent of Americans accepting that humans evolved from other creatures went from 47% to 55%. And the percentage thinking that God created man pretty much as he is, fell from 47% to 40%.

Not off to a very good start, it seems.

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

As you just learned, some viruses are kinda halfway between viruses and living cells. Precisely what you thought could not be.



As you learned, humans evolved from other primates, not jellyfish,which are too evolved int their own way to have led to humans.



No, you forgot all about how that works. Comb jellies are their own basal group, not a derived group.



As your fellow creationist Kurt Wise admits, there is very good evidence for humans evolving from other hominids. That's the most parsimonious conclusion from the fossil record. Perhaps you don't know what "parsimonious" means.



Jonathan Wells (note the spelling)
Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) - Wikipedia
He also thinks that the Rev. Moon is an improvement on Jesus Christ, so it's not the only weird idea he has.

And it's way wrong. In the 18 years since he made that prediction, the percent of Americans accepting that humans evolved from other creatures went from 47% to 55%. And the percentage thinking that God created man pretty much as he is, fell from 47% to 40%.

Not off to a very good start, it seems.

"As you learned, humans evolved from other primates, not jellyfish,which are too evolved int their own way to have led to humans."


Wow... You really don't know much about your OWN science fiction novel about Long Ago and Far Away do you!
Or are you claiming that YOU are the authority of how the Science Fiction of Darwin is supposed to be written and NOT The Scientists and Evolutionary Biologists from Vanderbilt and Wisconsin-Madison universities? LOL

Boffins discover origins of life on Earth – and we are all descended from JELLYFISH

Oh, while you are at it, please write a letter to the scientists from the University of Miami and the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in Maryland. Do me a favor and tell them to stop saying we descended from comb Jellyfish because YOU not only told me that their opinion doesn't count because YOU are the self proclaimed spokesman for the "Evolutionary Scientific Community" and YOU are the authority of how the SCIENCE FICTION NOVEL is supposed to be written...

Did humans descend from JELLYFISH? | Daily Mail Online

Now THIS is the point where you are supposed to say that you were wrong and you are sorry for trying to pretend you know more about the subject than I do.. But.. It never happens because Evolutionists don't care about the truth.

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

As you just learned, some viruses are kinda halfway between viruses and living cells. Precisely what you thought could not be.



As you learned, humans evolved from other primates, not jellyfish,which are too evolved int their own way to have led to humans.



No, you forgot all about how that works. Comb jellies are their own basal group, not a derived group.



As your fellow creationist Kurt Wise admits, there is very good evidence for humans evolving from other hominids. That's the most parsimonious conclusion from the fossil record. Perhaps you don't know what "parsimonious" means.



Jonathan Wells (note the spelling)
Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) - Wikipedia
He also thinks that the Rev. Moon is an improvement on Jesus Christ, so it's not the only weird idea he has.

And it's way wrong. In the 18 years since he made that prediction, the percent of Americans accepting that humans evolved from other creatures went from 47% to 55%. And the percentage thinking that God created man pretty much as he is, fell from 47% to 40%.

Not off to a very good start, it seems.

"And it's way wrong. In the 18 years since he made that prediction, the percent of Americans accepting that humans evolved from other creatures went from 47% to 55%. And the percentage thinking that God created man pretty much as he is, fell from 47% to 40%."

Is that how people like you determine truth vs. Fiction? Mob Rule? What people (Who know ZERO about the subject ) THINK?? The number of Atheists per capital in the US has also increased so it makes sense that more people believe that man evolved from other creatures (Atheism)

Small wonder you are so confused...


"The probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is, 1 in 10-161 power, using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began...for a minimum set of required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is, 1 in 10-119,879 power. It would take, 10-119,879 power, years on average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10-119,831 times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119,831 zeros."

(Dr. James Coppege from, "The Farce of Evolution" page 71)

 

[The Barbarian]

Silly appeal to popularity:
"I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum...I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence."

(Dr. Johnathan Wells, Moonie, IDer, Molecular biochemist and author of the book, "Icons of Evolution")

And it's way wrong. In the 18 years since he made that prediction, the percent of Americans accepting that humans evolved from other creatures went from 47% to 55%. And the percentage thinking that God created man pretty much as he is, fell from 47% to 40%.

Is that how people like you determine truth vs. Fiction? Mob Rule?

Apparently IDer/creationists do. See above. You touted him as an authority. As you see, he's really off base, besides his faulty reasoning in appealing to public opinion. But as you have already learned, people who actually know what they're talking about, accept evolution at a much, much higher rate. Would you like me to show you that, again?

What people (Who know ZERO about the subject ) THINK??

Americans are smarter than you seem to think they are. Yes, they can be wrong. About 40 percent of them are creationists. Still, most know better.

The number of Atheists per capital in the US has also increased

Not surprisingly, this happened during the time that YE creationism became more vocal and active. Christians have always warned about this:

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7].”
St. Augustine of Hippo

YE creationism is an efficient atheist-maker.

"The probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is, 1 in 10-161 power, using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began...for a minimum set of required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is, 1 in 10-119,879 power. It would take, 10-119,879 power, years on average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10-119,831 times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119,831 zeros."

(Dr. James Coppege from, "The Farce of Evolution" page 71)

Doctor Jim's major error is in assuming that evolution works by chance. As you learned, natural selection is the antithesis of chance. This is why complex enzyme systems like that which was observed to evolve in an experiment by Barry Hall, are possible.

Genetics. 1978 Jul; 89(3): 453–465.
Experimental Evolution of a New Enzymatic Function. II. 'Evolution of Multiple Functions for EBG Enzyme in E. COLI
Barry G. Hall
The evolution of ebgo enzyme of Escherichia coli, an enzyme which is unable to hydrolyze lactose, lactulose, lactobionate, or galactose-arabinoside effectively, has been directed in successive steps so that the evolved enzyme is able to hydrolyze these galactosides effectively. I show that in order for a strain of E. coli with a lacZ deletion to evolve the ability to use lactobionate as a carbon source, a series of mutations must occur in the ebg genes, and that these mutations must be selected in a particular order. The ordered series of mutations constitutes an obligatory evolutionary pathway for the acquisition of a new function for ebgo enzyme. A comparison of newly evolved strains with parental strains shows that when ebg enzyme acquires a new function, its old functions often suffer; but that in several cases old functions are either unaffected or are improved. I conclude that divergence of functions catalyzed by an enzyme need not require gene duplication.

As usual, reality whips anyone's faulty reasoning. Apparently, math and logic aren't Coppedge's strong points, um? There are more examples to show you. Would you like to see some more?

 

[The Barbarian]

As you just learned, some viruses are kinda halfway between viruses and living cells. Precisely what you thought could not be.

Humans evolved from other primates, not jellyfish,which are too evolved int their own way to have led to humans.

No, you forgot all about how that works. Comb jellies are their own basal group, not a derived group.

Wow... You really don't know much about your OWN science fiction novel about Long Ago and Far Away do you!

Well, let's see what you've misunderstood here...

Or are you claiming that YOU are the authority of how the Science Fiction of Darwin is supposed to be written and NOT The Scientists and Evolutionary Biologists from Vanderbilt and Wisconsin-Madison universities? LOL

Boffins discover origins of life on Earth – and we are all descended from JELLYFISH

I showed you that earlier. Genetic analysis indicated sponges are evolved from more complex animals. However, comb jellies are not our ancestors. They are a group that diverged from basal cnidarians to form a line that is not ancestral to any other metazoans. (Barbarian discovers something new: comb jellies are so divergent genetically, they've now been assigned their own phylum, Ctenophora). So no, even our very distant ancestors did not evolve from comb jellyfish.

I'm not sure how invert zoologists line up on this, but genetically, the evidence is that the common ancestor of bilaterans was not a cnidarian, but that cnidarians and bilaterans have a common coelomate ancestor (planarians and other bilateran acoelemates having lost the coelome). If you think back, you may remember that cnidarians are jellyfish, excepting comb jellies, which comprise a separate phylum.

In this phylogeny, our distant ancestors are the deuterostomes, which gave rise to echinoderms (mostly starfish and sea urchins) and chordates (our own phylum). As you see, jellyfish (cnidarians) and bilaterans have a common ancestor, but neither evolved from the other. Comb jellies split off from this group earlier, and are not in this phylogeny.

Oh, while you are at it, please write a letter to the scientists from the University of Miami and the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in Maryland. Do me a favor and tell them to stop saying we descended from comb Jellyfish

As you see, that's not the case. They know better, too. You just got it all confused, partially because the newspaper from which you got the information had it wrong too. Remember when I suggested you avoid tabloids and magazines? Get your information from the literature, and it won't be garbled the way you got it here.

because YOU not only told me that their opinion doesn't count

No, you just got it all mixed up. See above.

because YOU are the self proclaimed spokesman for the "Evolutionary Scientific Community"

No, you're getting yourself all worked up again. Relax a bit and read more carefully. I'm just showing you what invertebrate biologists and geneticists have found.

Again, if you read the literature, instead of newspaper reporter attempts to understand the literature, you'll do much better. If the truth matters to you.

 

[The Barbarian]

jJIM, I want to say that I've noticed your tone has changed somewhat in your last few posts, and it's appreciated. And at this point, I'd like to say that if I was unnecessarily harsh with you in any way, I do apologize for it.

It was not my intention; I'm excessively blunt, and I know it's a failing. I'll make an effort to avoid offending you in the future. Please keep in mind, I'm working on being more tactful, even if I fail sometimes.

Again, your change in tone is noticed and much appreciated. I suspect that you might sometimes struggle with it as I do, and I will keep that in mind during our discussions.

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

However, comb jellies are not our ancestors.

I am quite aware that comb jellies are not the ancestors of anything but comb jellies.. just like humans are not the descendants of anything but Humans.. Because God created man from the dust just like he said he did. And he did it in less than a day. And he created comb jellies in less than a day as well.. Just like he said he did.. Why the need to doubt him?

And the evidence supports that conclusion as well..

THEREFORE

You need to write some letters (Again) telling these scientists and their colleagues that they have it wrong because you are the author of how the planet of the apes science fiction novel is supposed to be written...

Who has the authority to decide? You? OR them?
This is a serious question by the way.. please dont respond with the usual fetid taurine fecal matter and insult my intelligence.. I am not some low IQ naive 15 year old biology student that simply swallows what people tell them uncritically like you apparently were telling yourself..

HERE IS THEIR "REASONING"..YOU NEED TO WRITE THEM A FEW LETTERS TELLING THEM WHY THEY HAVE IT "WRONG" REMEMBER TO BE SPECIFIC THANKS..

A Complete Sequence

Baxevanis and colleagues came to this conclusion after producing the first complete genome sequence of a comb jelly using a species called the sea walnut (Mnemiopsis leidyi).

Of the four ancient animal groups in contention for the title of first animal ancestor—sponges, comb jellies, jellyfish, and a group called the placozoa—only the comb jellies lacked a complete genome sequence from one of its members. (See jellyfish pictures.)

Complete genome sequences are important when trying to compare relationships between groups of organisms.

When Baxevanis and colleagues started their project, they were mainly interested in producing that comb jelly genome sequence and filling the gap in the data.

But when they plugged their genome into a computer program that helps researchers determine the evolutionary relationships between organisms—a field of study called phylogenetics—they were in for a shock.

Although their model came up with several possible scenarios for how comb jellies were related to all the other animal groups, some of the most likely scenarios put the gelatinous animals at the base of the animal family tree. (See video of the blood belly comb jelly.)


Was Your Ancestor a Ball of Jelly? Evolution Study Surprises Experts

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

Silly appeal to popularity:
"I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum...I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence."

(Dr. Johnathan Wells, Moonie, IDer, Molecular biochemist and author of the book, "Icons of Evolution")

And it's way wrong. In the 18 years since he made that prediction, the percent of Americans accepting that humans evolved from other creatures went from 47% to 55%. And the percentage thinking that God created man pretty much as he is, fell from 47% to 40%.



Apparently IDer/creationists do. See above. You touted him as an authority. As you see, he's really off base, besides his faulty reasoning in appealing to public opinion. But as you have already learned, people who actually know what they're talking about, accept evolution at a much, much higher rate. Would you like me to show you that, again?



Americans are smarter than you seem to think they are. Yes, they can be wrong. About 40 percent of them are creationists. Still, most know better.



Not surprisingly, this happened during the time that YE creationism became more vocal and active. Christians have always warned about this:

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7].”
St. Augustine of Hippo

YE creationism is an efficient atheist-maker.



Doctor Jim's major error is in assuming that evolution works by chance. As you learned, natural selection is the antithesis of chance. This is why complex enzyme systems like that which was observed to evolve in an experiment by Barry Hall, are possible.

Genetics. 1978 Jul; 89(3): 453–465.
Experimental Evolution of a New Enzymatic Function. II. 'Evolution of Multiple Functions for EBG Enzyme in E. COLI
Barry G. Hall
The evolution of ebgo enzyme of Escherichia coli, an enzyme which is unable to hydrolyze lactose, lactulose, lactobionate, or galactose-arabinoside effectively, has been directed in successive steps so that the evolved enzyme is able to hydrolyze these galactosides effectively. I show that in order for a strain of E. coli with a lacZ deletion to evolve the ability to use lactobionate as a carbon source, a series of mutations must occur in the ebg genes, and that these mutations must be selected in a particular order. The ordered series of mutations constitutes an obligatory evolutionary pathway for the acquisition of a new function for ebgo enzyme. A comparison of newly evolved strains with parental strains shows that when ebg enzyme acquires a new function, its old functions often suffer; but that in several cases old functions are either unaffected or are improved. I conclude that divergence of functions catalyzed by an enzyme need not require gene duplication.

As usual, reality whips anyone's faulty reasoning. Apparently, math and logic aren't Coppedge's strong points, um? There are more examples to show you. Would you like to see some more?

"The evolution of ebgo enzyme of Escherichia coli, an enzyme which is unable to hydrolyze lactose, lactulose, lactobionate, or galactose-arabinoside effectively, has been directed in successive steps so that the evolved enzyme is able to hydrolyze these galactosides effectively. "

"has been directed in successive steps"

Is THIS really "Evolution"?

What if man (A purposeful intelligent agent) were to "direct in successive steps" generations of E Coli for 800 octillian years..... What would that E Coli become? I know! It would become a monster E COLI Bacteria!!! You see, God put the genetic information in each and every different living organism in the beginning. He put the genetic information for Humans in the beginning.. He DIDN'T put the genetic information for LEMURS to evolve into APES to evolve into APEMEN like you apparently believe... That is not part of the Scientific Method... That is a religious belief in Metaphysical Naturalism...

 

[The Barbarian]

"The evolution of ebgo enzyme of Escherichia coli, an enzyme which is unable to hydrolyze lactose, lactulose, lactobionate, or galactose-arabinoside effectively, has been directed in successive steps so that the evolved enzyme is able to hydrolyze these galactosides effectively. "

"has been directed in successive steps"

Is THIS really "Evolution"?

Yep. Remember what evolution is. "Change in allele frequency in a population over time." But the key is, the bacteria evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system by mutation and natural selection. In fact Hall was surprised to find that it also evolved a regulator, so that the enzyme would not be produced unless the substrate was present. So the system then had three parts:
Substrate
Enzyme
Regulator

All three parts must be present for the system to work; the absence of even one of them means it won't work. Which is Behe's definition of "irreducibly complex." And notice that the enzyme evolved in spite of Coppege's "mathematical analysis." Because, as you know, natural selection isn't random, as Coppege assumed.

[quote[What if man (A purposeful intelligent agent) were to "direct in successive steps" generations of E Coli[/quote]

That's not what happened, as you now see. The bacteria went through some mutations. Some were useful and were retained. Some weren't, and they were lost as the cells with those mutations lost out to cells with higher fitness. That's all it takes. It's why, as creationist organizations like AIG admits, new species, genera, and families of organisms appear from older ones.

You see, God put the genetic information in each and every different living organism in the beginning.

That's obviously wrong, as you can see from these bacteria, which evolved an entirely new enzyme system. For a Christian it's very obviously wrong, because we accept that we are descended from a single pair of humans. And two people can have, at most, four different alleles for each gene locus. Yet humans have dozens of alleles for most genes. The rest evolved over time. God didn't give Adam and Eve gazillions of alleles; there's no way they could have them. He gave living things the means to mutate and evolve over time.

In the words of IDer Michael Denton:
In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.

He put the genetic information for Humans in the beginning..

But as you now realize, He didn't put all the genetic information that humans have today, into just two people. They weren't created that way. He gave them the means to evolve new traits as needed, such as the EPAS gene that allows Tibetans to thrive at very high altitudes; it evolved over just a few thousand years God gave them the ability to evolve over time to increase fitness.

He DIDN'T put the genetic information for LEMURS to evolve into APES to evolve into APEMEN

Right. He gave them the ability to change over time as the environment required. Because no creature could carry all those alleles, He gave them the ability to adapt in a way that passed on those adaptations to new generations. Which is an amazing gift. God is a lot more intelligent and powerful than many people realize. The evidence, confirming the predictions of Darwin's theory, is why scientists overwhelmingly accept the reality of evolution. That's how science works.

 

[The Barbarian]

You need to write some letters (Again) telling these scientists and their colleagues that they have it wrong

I just showed you that the reporter got it wrong. As you saw from the genetic data, humans didn't evolve from comb jellies or even cnidarians. Bilaterans (including us) and cnidarians evolved from a common ancestor. This is why I suggested not going to newspapers and magazines for this information. Reporters often get it wrong, as they did this time.

Who has the authority to decide? You? OR them?

There is no "decider" in science. When the data clearly shows something, most scientists accept it and include it in their work. There's almost always a dissenter or dozen. Sometimes, if the data isn't as clear as it could be, there's a good deal of controversy. In evolution, about 0.3% of people with doctorates in biology or a related field don't accept Darwinian theory.

This is a serious question by the way.. please dont respond with the usual fetid taurine fecal matter and insult my intelligence.. I am not some low IQ naive 15 year old biology student that simply swallows what people tell them uncritically like you apparently were telling yourself..

Which is why I'm linking you to the data.

HERE IS THEIR "REASONING"..YOU NEED TO WRITE THEM A FEW LETTERS TELLING THEM WHY THEY HAVE IT "WRONG" REMEMBER TO BE SPECIFIC THANKS..

They already know. Here's one group that couldn't reproduce the Baxevanis data:

Genomic data do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals
Davide Pisani, Walker Pett, Martin Dohrmann, Roberto Feuda, Omar Rota-Stabelli, Hervé Philippe, Nicolas Lartillot, and Gert Wörheide
PNAS December 15, 2015 112 (50) 15402-15407

Significance
Clarifying the phylogeny of animals is fundamental to understanding their evolution. Traditionally, sponges have been considered the sister group of all other extant animals, but recent genomic studies have suggested comb jellies occupy that position instead. Here, we analyzed the current genomic evidence from comb jellies and found no convincing support for this hypothesis. Instead, when analyzed with appropriate methods, recent genomic data support the traditional hypothesis. We conclude that the alternative scenario of animal evolution according to which ctenophores evolved morphological complexity independently from cnidarians and bilaterians or, alternatively, sponges secondarily lost a nervous system, muscles, and other characters, is not supported by the available evidence.

Abstract
Understanding how complex traits, such as epithelia, nervous systems, muscles, or guts, originated depends on a well-supported hypothesis about the phylogenetic relationships among major animal lineages. Traditionally, sponges (Porifera) have been interpreted as the sister group to the remaining animals, a hypothesis consistent with the conventional view that the last common animal ancestor was relatively simple and more complex body plans arose later in evolution. However, this premise has recently been challenged by analyses of the genomes of comb jellies (Ctenophora), which, instead, found ctenophores as the sister group to the remaining animals (the “Ctenophora-sister” hypothesis). Because ctenophores are morphologically complex predators with true epithelia, nervous systems, muscles, and guts, this scenario implies these traits were either present in the last common ancestor of all animals and were lost secondarily in sponges and placozoans (Trichoplax) or, alternatively, evolved convergently in comb jellies. Here, we analyze representative datasets from recent studies supporting Ctenophora-sister, including genome-scale alignments of concatenated protein sequences, as well as a genomic gene content dataset. We found no support for Ctenophora-sister and conclude it is an artifact resulting from inadequate methodology, especially the use of simplistic evolutionary models and inappropriate choice of species to root the metazoan tree. Our results reinforce a traditional scenario for the evolution of complexity in animals, and indicate that inferences about the evolution of Metazoa based on the Ctenophora-sister hypothesis are not supported by the currently available data.

It's an interesting idea, but the data don't support the conclusion that the Ctenophora are the ancestors of other metazoans.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here is the gist of the Ctenophor ancestor claim:

Sponges don't have a nervous system or muscles and when scientists considered them to be our first ancestors, it was assumed other animals evolved and developed these features over time.

However, comb jellies do have these features. This means that if they were the first ancestors, some species lost their nervous systems and muscles, despite the fact they would have given that species a so-called 'survival advantage.'
The ctenophore lineage is older than sponges? That cannot be right! Or can it?

This why it was so important when researchers found that striated muscle in ctenophors is coded by entirely different genes than in bilaterans and cnidarians.

2012 Jul 12;487(7406):231-4. doi: 10.1038/nature11180.
Independent Evolution of Striated Muscles in Cnidarians and Bilaterians

Patrick R H Steinmetz 1 , Johanna E M Kraus, Claire Larroux, Jörg U Hammel, Annette Amon-Hassenzahl, Evelyn Houliston, Gert Wörheide, Michael Nickel, Bernard M Degnan, Ulrich Technau

Abstract

Striated muscles are present in bilaterian animals (for example, vertebrates, insects and annelids) and some non-bilaterian eumetazoans (that is, cnidarians and ctenophores). The considerable ultrastructural similarity of striated muscles between these animal groups is thought to reflect a common evolutionary origin. Here we show that a muscle protein core set, including a type II myosin heavy chain (MyHC) motor protein characteristic of striated muscles in vertebrates, was already present in unicellular organisms before the origin of multicellular animals. Furthermore, 'striated muscle' and 'non-muscle' myhc orthologues are expressed differentially in two sponges, compatible with a functional diversification before the origin of true muscles and the subsequent use of striated muscle MyHC in fast-contracting smooth and striated muscle. Cnidarians and ctenophores possess striated muscle myhc orthologues but lack crucial components of bilaterian striated muscles, such as genes that code for titin and the troponin complex, suggesting the convergent evolution of striated muscles. Consistently, jellyfish orthologues of a shared set of bilaterian Z-disc proteins are not associated with striated muscles, but are instead expressed elsewhere or ubiquitously. The independent evolution of eumetazoan striated muscles through the addition of new proteins to a pre-existing, ancestral contractile apparatus may serve as a model for the evolution of complex animal cell types.

And we don't know when neurons evolved, so that's no help, either.

The evidence, as the report above documents, is that bilaterans are not descendants of either ctenophors or cnidarians.

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

Here is the gist of the Ctenophor ancestor claim:

Sponges don't have a nervous system or muscles and when scientists considered them to be our first ancestors, it was assumed other animals evolved and developed these features over time.

However, comb jellies do have these features. This means that if they were the first ancestors, some species lost their nervous systems and muscles, despite the fact they would have given that species a so-called 'survival advantage.'
The ctenophore lineage is older than sponges? That cannot be right! Or can it?

This why it was so important when researchers found that striated muscle in ctenophors is coded by entirely different genes than in bilaterans and cnidarians.

2012 Jul 12;487(7406):231-4. doi: 10.1038/nature11180.
Independent Evolution of Striated Muscles in Cnidarians and Bilaterians

Patrick R H Steinmetz 1 , Johanna E M Kraus, Claire Larroux, Jörg U Hammel, Annette Amon-Hassenzahl, Evelyn Houliston, Gert Wörheide, Michael Nickel, Bernard M Degnan, Ulrich Technau

Abstract

Striated muscles are present in bilaterian animals (for example, vertebrates, insects and annelids) and some non-bilaterian eumetazoans (that is, cnidarians and ctenophores). The considerable ultrastructural similarity of striated muscles between these animal groups is thought to reflect a common evolutionary origin. Here we show that a muscle protein core set, including a type II myosin heavy chain (MyHC) motor protein characteristic of striated muscles in vertebrates, was already present in unicellular organisms before the origin of multicellular animals. Furthermore, 'striated muscle' and 'non-muscle' myhc orthologues are expressed differentially in two sponges, compatible with a functional diversification before the origin of true muscles and the subsequent use of striated muscle MyHC in fast-contracting smooth and striated muscle. Cnidarians and ctenophores possess striated muscle myhc orthologues but lack crucial components of bilaterian striated muscles, such as genes that code for titin and the troponin complex, suggesting the convergent evolution of striated muscles. Consistently, jellyfish orthologues of a shared set of bilaterian Z-disc proteins are not associated with striated muscles, but are instead expressed elsewhere or ubiquitously. The independent evolution of eumetazoan striated muscles through the addition of new proteins to a pre-existing, ancestral contractile apparatus may serve as a model for the evolution of complex animal cell types.

And we don't know when neurons evolved, so that's no help, either.

The evidence, as the report above documents, is that bilaterans are not descendants of either ctenophors or cnidarians.

"And we don't know when neurons evolved, so that's no help, either."

Let me help you there.. They DIDN'T.... Evolutionism is a fairytale... Dont you remember?

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

I just showed you that the reporter got it wrong. As you saw from the genetic data, humans didn't evolve from comb jellies or even cnidarians. Bilaterans (including us) and cnidarians evolved from a common ancestor. This is why I suggested not going to newspapers and magazines for this information. Reporters often get it wrong, as they did this time.



There is no "decider" in science. When the data clearly shows something, most scientists accept it and include it in their work. There's almost always a dissenter or dozen. Sometimes, if the data isn't as clear as it could be, there's a good deal of controversy. In evolution, about 0.3% of people with doctorates in biology or a related field don't accept Darwinian theory.



Which is why I'm linking you to the data.

HERE IS THEIR "REASONING"..YOU NEED TO WRITE THEM A FEW LETTERS TELLING THEM WHY THEY HAVE IT "WRONG" REMEMBER TO BE SPECIFIC THANKS..

They already know. Here's one group that couldn't reproduce the Baxevanis data:

Genomic data do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals
Davide Pisani, Walker Pett, Martin Dohrmann, Roberto Feuda, Omar Rota-Stabelli, Hervé Philippe, Nicolas Lartillot, and Gert Wörheide
PNAS December 15, 2015 112 (50) 15402-15407

Significance
Clarifying the phylogeny of animals is fundamental to understanding their evolution. Traditionally, sponges have been considered the sister group of all other extant animals, but recent genomic studies have suggested comb jellies occupy that position instead. Here, we analyzed the current genomic evidence from comb jellies and found no convincing support for this hypothesis. Instead, when analyzed with appropriate methods, recent genomic data support the traditional hypothesis. We conclude that the alternative scenario of animal evolution according to which ctenophores evolved morphological complexity independently from cnidarians and bilaterians or, alternatively, sponges secondarily lost a nervous system, muscles, and other characters, is not supported by the available evidence.

Abstract
Understanding how complex traits, such as epithelia, nervous systems, muscles, or guts, originated depends on a well-supported hypothesis about the phylogenetic relationships among major animal lineages. Traditionally, sponges (Porifera) have been interpreted as the sister group to the remaining animals, a hypothesis consistent with the conventional view that the last common animal ancestor was relatively simple and more complex body plans arose later in evolution. However, this premise has recently been challenged by analyses of the genomes of comb jellies (Ctenophora), which, instead, found ctenophores as the sister group to the remaining animals (the “Ctenophora-sister” hypothesis). Because ctenophores are morphologically complex predators with true epithelia, nervous systems, muscles, and guts, this scenario implies these traits were either present in the last common ancestor of all animals and were lost secondarily in sponges and placozoans (Trichoplax) or, alternatively, evolved convergently in comb jellies. Here, we analyze representative datasets from recent studies supporting Ctenophora-sister, including genome-scale alignments of concatenated protein sequences, as well as a genomic gene content dataset. We found no support for Ctenophora-sister and conclude it is an artifact resulting from inadequate methodology, especially the use of simplistic evolutionary models and inappropriate choice of species to root the metazoan tree. Our results reinforce a traditional scenario for the evolution of complexity in animals, and indicate that inferences about the evolution of Metazoa based on the Ctenophora-sister hypothesis are not supported by the currently available data.

It's an interesting idea, but the data don't support the conclusion that the Ctenophora are the ancestors of other metazoans.


"Here's one group that couldn't reproduce the Baxevanis data"

So YOU are the one who gets to decide which group has written the correct script for how the science fiction novel about "long ago and far away" should be written? Why is that? You DOGMATICALLY claimed that humans did NOT evolve from comb jellyfish as if YOU are the self proclaimed AUTHORITY on how the book is written.. Can you see a problem with that? I didn't think so....

Here's one group that couldn't reproduce the Baxevanis data"

So YOU are the one who gets to decide which group has written the correct script for how the science fiction novel about "long ago and far away" should be written? Why is that? You DOGMATICALLY claimed that (according to the fairytale of Evolutionism) humans did NOT evolve from comb jellyfish.. You even blamed CREATIONISTS for pointing out that that is what evolutionists claim!!! Shame on you!!... As if YOU are the self proclaimed AUTHORITY on how the book is written.. Can you see a problem with that? I didn't think so....

Let me teach you a useful acronym (That you will surely NEVER use)

IMHO...

 

[The Barbarian]

Here's one group that couldn't reproduce the Baxevanis data"

Just one of them. But it's enough. The analysis fails to support the new claim. That's a serious problem for the original group. So far as I've been able to see, no one has managed to reproduce those results.

So YOU are the one who gets to decide which group has written the correct script for how the science fiction novel about "long ago and far away" should be written?

Comes down to data. The way science works, if other researchers can't reproduce your results, you lose. It's a tough game, but it works.

Why is that?

If the claim is true, then others will be able to reproduce your results. And so far, I've found no one who can.

You DOGMATICALLY claimed that (according to the fairytale of Evolutionism) humans did NOT evolve from comb jellyfish..

I pointed out the evidence. Genetic analysis shows that comb jellies are an outgroup from all other metazoans, and did not give rise to other phyla. It also shows that cnidarians did not give rise to bilaterans, but both groups evolved from a common ancestor. That's the evidence.

Genetic data is becoming very clear about this.

Genome Biol. 2006; 7(7): R64.
Published online 2006 Jul 24
The cnidarian-bilaterian ancestor possessed at least 56 homeoboxes: evidence from the starlet sea anemone, Nematostella vectensis
Conclusion
The homeodomain superclass underwent extensive radiations prior to the evolutionary split between Cnidaria and Bilateria. Fifty-six homeodomain families found in human and/or fruit fly are also found in Nematostella, though seventeen families shared by human and fly appear absent in Nematostella. Homeodomain loss is also apparent in the bilaterian taxa: eight homeodomain families shared by Drosophila and Nematostella appear absent from human (CG13424, EMXLX, HOMEOBRAIN, MSXLX, NK7, REPO, ROUGH, and UNC4), and six homeodomain families shared by human and Nematostella appear absent from fruit fly (ALX, DMBX, DUX, HNF, POU1, and VAX).

You even blamed CREATIONISTS for pointing out that that is what evolutionists claim!!!

See above. You've been misled about that.

Shame on you!!... As if YOU are the self proclaimed AUTHORITY on how the book is written.. Can you see a problem with that? I didn't think so....

You're getting excited again. As you see, the data show that cnidarians and bilaterans are sister groups; neither evolved from the other. They both evolved from a common ancestor. Ctenophors split off from the common ancestral group earlier, according to genetic data.